You may also like
Winsor McCay, the Famous Cartoonist of the N.Y. Herald and His Moving Comics torrent reviews
Stef (de) wrote: This one and a half hour movie probably took me twice as long to get through simply because of the many times I had to pause and take deep breaths and go do something else for a while in an attempt to compose myself when the cringe factor became too much and I feared I might just pass out due to second hand embarrassment. Seriously. I've been trying to watch the confrontation scene for half an hour now without much success (intervals of ten seconds of movie and five minutes of browsing Reddit seems to do the trick).That said, Beauty and the Beast is my favorite Disney movie ever. And Beastly ain't no Beauty and the Beast. Sure, Alex Pettyfer is extremely easy on the eyes. And it's got NPH and Lisa Gay Hamilton. And something something Vanessa Hudgens. But the cringe, man. The cringe. There's so much cringe! Either brought on by Pettyfer's awkward delivery or scripted moments that made me want to sink through the floor they were so bad... I can't get over it.In short: full or awesome, pretty people (even in full scarface Pettyfer was attractive), awkward script, and holy canon divergence Batman! Still, worth a watch if you're into... romance? I don't even know what to classify this movie as. If you like to experience powerful bouts of second hand embarrassment, then this is the movie for you!
Reece H (br) wrote: The series was much funnier then the movie i felt bored with this film i prefer the series over the film.
Delilah K (au) wrote: I kind of liked how they handled the topic of dominance and submission. At least for a cinema movie (was it even in cinemas?). I also love Gyllenhaal and Spader in this one, that definitely adds to me liking this movie.
Spookie M (ca) wrote: After watching this a second time I really enjoyed this tongue-in -cheek vampire movie. Anne Parillaud is ultra sexy, Robert Loggia hams it up, Don Rickles turns into a vampire and many famous directors cameo. Totally fun for film buffs and fans of Landis.
Adam F (kr) wrote: "Failure to Launch" is yet another bad and unimaginative romantic comedy and I will gladly tell you why it's terrible, while also admitting that it's not a complete turd, and that it has a few, tiny saving graces. The entire premise is just ridiculous and feels incredibly uninspired: "What if, we took the traditional romantic comedy, where the guy is super hot and charming but the catch is he still lives with his parents!" That's what this movie is about. Matthew McConaughey plays Tripp, a guy who still lives with his parents and doesn't care. He uses the fact that he hasn't moved out as a way to break up with girls who he feels are getting too close to him, meaning the chances of him moving out with a girlfriend are incredibly slim. His parents, fed up with this nonsense hire Paula (Sarah Jessica Parker) to help get him out of the house. You see, she's a woman who specializes in pretending to date guys so she can boost up their confidence and get them to become adults. Officially, she's not supposed to get attached to the clients, but uh oh! What happens if she can't resist that McConaughey charm?First of all, you don't buy the premise of the film for a second. Sure, there are people that live at home with their parents for years, well into their adult lives but can you believe that Matthew McConaughey, attractive as he is wouldn't have been out of the house, if only so he could pick up chicks left and right in college or throw big, loud parties? There's a reason most people look forward to moving out of their parents house but those are never taken into account in this film. Instead, we're given a bogus explanation for why he has not moved on: a tragic past with a girlfriend that died years ago. You might think to yourself that this might sound like a legitimate reason, but that's the movie tricking you into liking it, do you know why? Because it's a carefully calculated way to make his character sympathetic despite the fact that earlier in the film he's depicted as being lazy (since he lives with his parents and doesn't do any chores), deceitful (he deliberately invites girls over to his house so he can pretend that he doesn't understand why they break up with him and pretends to have a boat to impress the ladies so he can get laid), cowardly (he's afraid of being in a relationship) and a lousy friend. It's also an experience that is traumatic, but not so traumatic that it can't be set aside when the plot needs it to be (like if he had been mugged and had developed agoraphobia as a child kind of thing). Because of this contrived plot point, his character is very inconsistent from scene to scene. Later in the film you see his soft side, how he likes kids, and he becomes a nice, charismatic guy. The film tells you that deep down, he's just hurt and THAT's the reason why he hasn't moved out, not that he's a big jerk who likes to manipulate women and take advantage of his parents. If you chop this movie in half and watch them separately, you would think Tripp is from two different stories altogether.The movie is extremely predictable and the jokes are lazily written. You get not one, not two but four jokes were animals bite a character for comedic effect. You don't see that many people get attacked by animals in children's films and those often resort to the basic poop and fart jokes in order to get laughs. Sure, you get some variety because no two animals are the same (mockingbird, lizard, dolphin and chipmunk) but it really screams desperation when cute animals and their reactions are used to boost up the comedy (what, you mean you didn't laugh when he dog reacted to the mention of neutering?). The other jokes are just as inspired; people get hit in the face with pieces of sushi, fall down while rock climbing, get hit in the face and fall into the ocean, get shot in the foot accidently and so on. One joke that's so bad it feels offensive (not because it's racist but because the writer must assume only morons are watching the movie) is when Tripp discovers his father waltzing around in the nude. The setup is that Tripp's father Al (Terry Bradshaw) is desperate to get his boy out of the house so he decides to transform one of the rooms into his own "nude room" and Tripp just happens to walk in. So what would an actual, real human being say in such a situation? "Eww! Gross!" or "What are you doing dad!?" and maybe cover their eyes? Well not this guy. When "Tripp" sees his father he just casually starts talking to him like nothing's unusual. It's a scene that is supposed to be funny but just comes off as unsettling and kind of creepy. The one good thing the movie has going is Zooey Deschanel as Paula's roommate Kit. Her boozing, "couldn't care less", slightly sadistic character has the best lines (when she calls Paula a "dirty little fun haver" you'll genuinely laugh), the only believable romance in the film and her natural charisma and charm bulldozes through the cheap jokes and lame script to actually create a fun, memorable role and makes you look forward to seeing her character. Every time she's on the screen the movie brightens up and becomes funny. You'll be watching and wishing the whole movie was about her instead of this catastrophe starring two actors who have zero chemistry. During the obligatory third act breakup between Tripp and Paula, I was begging that this movie would have an inspired scene where the two of them just never see each other again because it was once again caused by a stupid revelation about one of the characters' past (talk about the pot calling the kettle black by the way). I hated Tripp's character after that scene. Just because Matthew McConaughey looks good with his shirt off (uh and I say that in the most manly way possible!) we're supposed to cheer for him and Sarah Jessica Parker to get back together? I say forget abouth them and focus on Zooey Deschanel and her subplot.The conclusion feels incredibly contrived. The leads are literally locked into a room together so they can talk until they fall in love. It's so lazy you've seen it done time and time again and confirms that these are not two real people, they are puppets dancing at the beat of a bunch of lazy filmmakers that expect us, the audience to just buy whatever junk they churn out. The only redeeming value, like I said is the character of Kit and her sub-plot but even then that's not nearly good enough to give the movie anywhere close an "average". I should conclude with some kind of joke about launching this movie into the sun but honestly, I feel like the dead horse has been beaten to a pile of bubbling goo at this point so I'm satisfied. (On Dvd, May 18th, 2013)
Dillinger P (nl) wrote: Bronson shines in this visually stunning yet spineless western.
Sam B (mx) wrote: A brilliant, complex thriller that, with its unconventional editing and structure, makes for an experience unlike any other, a fascinating, tense and unexpected masterpiece that I feel is one of the most underrated films ever made.
Matthew S (nl) wrote: David Fincher's film of the first of the Millennium Trilogy books is an extremely well paced and narratively satisfying psychological thriller. There are significant differences from the Norwegian film but Fincher essentially tells the same story - albeit with a very different visual style and characterisations from Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig. Mara is wonderful as the socially withdrawn, attachment-disordered researcher / hacker Lisbeth Salander, and it is sad that neither Fincher nor she appear to be involved with a continuation of the series.